Why we need humvs.

[paracowboy]

it's been explained to me many times (and on here once or twice, I believe) but I still fail to understand why we waste so much time/money "researching" these things. The research is being done by the grown-up armies in the UK, the US, Oz, and Israel.

Here's my research plan: "Is it working right now, for somebody in an actual theatre? Cool! Call 'em up an' ask what's good/bad about it. Get back to me. And gimme my damn porn mag back!"

 

[ArmyRick]

Grown up armies, LOL.

Canada "Hey big brother america, can we come on this op?"
America "Only if you want to be serious, little canada, this is not one of those token missions!"

 

[doka_man]

hey.i highly agree.one of you were saying that they are too hard on gas but the Ilits are very old therefor the engines use a lot more gas then they used to wether its a new injector or not.the Humvee is tre cool.but like he said they arnt landmine proof.it wouldn't be the most practical thing to get but would be great because how often do u find the Canadian military driving through a land mine Field.in the end it would be cool and it might encourage more people to join the forces but we should save the money and put it towards new hercs because they are way to out dated.if we dont get the Humvees we should do a lot of repairs to the other vehicles like rebuilding the engines and replacing parts they will be more efficient and last longer.AND NOT THE NEW EDITION THAT SOMEONE HAD THE PICTURE OF.too much money and not as cool as the original humvee.

 

[RequiemVK]

Effort to replace Humvee sped up
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

The Pentagon is accelerating its search to replace the Humvee after two years of roadside bomb blasts and suicide attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds of soldiers in a vehicle not designed for urban combat.

the rest here : http://feeds.afghanistannews.net/?rid=333aa522c693019f&cat=6e1d5c8e1f98f17c&f=1

 

[TN2IC]

I think that if we had humvs, life would be better.  You dont have to worry about a wheel to come off or something.  Its armored and landmine proof, so no more you know what.

Ah.... I know I"m late in this game... but I do know that the wheel can come off. I drove these Hummers and they are crap...IMO.

 

[Wolfe]

The new hummers they want to build look pretty nice....

Wolf 

 

[Kyle]

Well then i came here to post about the merits of Hummers and instead find no one is even havin a pissing contest, Cool.
Anyway what i wanted to say I prefer the G-Wagon over a Hummer heres why;

1) Im biased, Ive been a turret gunner in the G-wagon for the last six odd months
2) Over seas the americans were breaking down all the time and the only problems we had is one vehical's air conditoner went down

I would like to hear what everyone else thinks, but in my opinon we have no need for humvs.

We don't have the budget to buy and run both jeeps and 4x4 armoured vehicles, and I don't think that we can simply discard jeeps (yes, France does have the VBL, but they also drive the VLTT - Peugeot P4), so I think we made the best of a situation where DND wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Besides, the Americans must have seen something in the G-Class, because the USMC bought the G-290 for their Force Recon operations.

But getting back to your original quote, if it came to having a jeep and an armoured 4x4, I think I'd skip the HMMWV and go right for the Panhard VBL.  ;D

Yeah, I loved the Iltis too - one step up from an ATV, but as good as you could get for having your nose to the ground.

This made me think of an interesting question. How do you in the Combat Arms feel about the trend towards vehicles with more armour? Do you feel that it's a good thing because it protects better against small arms fire and anti-personnel mines, or that it's counterproductive, because it isolates you from the local population and environment around you?

 

[axeman]

Quote from: Da_man on January 03, 2004, 10:25:00
I think that if we had humvs, life would be better.  You dont have to worry about a wheel to come off or something.  Its armored and landmine proof, so no more you know what.





Ah.... I know I"m late in this game... but I do know that the wheel can come off. I drove these Hummers and they are crap...IMO.

Every one has an opinion im in favor of the hummers but i know they are mine RESISTANT not mine PROOF,, mine proof means you'd never have to worry about wacking a mine .. being mine resistant means you may get lucky in a mine strike case ..
VBL's are mine resistant as are the hummers  gwagons are also. it all depends on ho.w the drivers use and abuse them and the maintaners work on them .. i had a flat and a pan leak on the one i had in Afghanistan before it became scrap metal due to a mine strike . im very pro hummer  but i'd like to see the vbls in use as ive seen them used in bosnia with great results
thats my IMHO

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm sure this has been asked before but why in God's name did the CF buy hard-top G-Wagens? The Germans (and pretty much everyone else who uses them-Norwegians, Danes etc) have open-top ones with a ring-mount for a .50 Browning or Mk19, an MG3/C6 for the co-driver and even some with a second 7.62 machine gun pointing out the back.

VBL- good idea Tom

CF and PWGSC trying to be all things to all people, end up penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Infantry types seem to just want a vehicle to move their tails from point a to point b.  Somebody starts shooting they would rather get out and walk (rapidly) to the nearest hill or other solid object.

Armour types seem to want a vehicle that will bounce bullets so that they don't have to move too far from their boiling pots while exiting the area. (Presumably there are other tactical advantages to not having to get out and walk).

Cheers ;D

 

[AoD71]

You know what I think would be cool?! That new Jeep Commander!

http://www.jeep.com/commander/home_flash.html?section=&edirect=

Come on, how cool is that?! I know the G wagon is small and will fit in tight places, but the thing looks like it would be easy to roll in an accident. The Army should have the Commander cuz its a friggin beast, and IMO we all need one of those. Look, you could take out the back seats and put in a dance floor! You just have a removable top, and you can school your buddies while on tour overseas. Good moral-booster! What do you guys think?

 

[Timex129]

Being a tech myself, I feel we don't need Humvs in the CF. For the following resons;
1 They're too wide to have on most operations oversea's to be useful. (hint narrow roadways BAD)
2 The transmission that are in them are not the greatest (from what I heard from other techs that put time on them)
3 They have worst fuel milage than a wreacker with a vehicle on the back. (the HL weacker get about 2/k highway with a causality)

Although I would admit it would rise our look cool factor, The LUVW that replace the Iltis is a well rounded rig that is better suited for the job than an humv.

 

[Koenigsegg]

In my opinion the hummvs are too stretched out in terms of their jobs and capabilities.   They came into service as an unarmed personnel carrier(to replace the jeep that was in service since WWII), then it got a machine gun mounted.   Now adays they come with Grenade launchers, rocket launchers, jamming, anti-aircraft, new microwave technology, mobile command (I think) station, and ambulances.   It does not no do any these armed jobs very well, but it pulls them off adequately.   But when it is an American vehicle, and they have tons of them, they feel that they can lose a few doing jobs the vehicle was not meant for.
I would prefer to have a vehicle better to do all these tasks, or better yet, although it would cost a lot more, have specialized vehicles meant for each one of these jobs.

 

[2Charlie]

Read through the various posts in here and it blows me away at how many folks with little or no exposure to a vehicle can talk of it.

The HMMWV High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle was designed to replace two types of vehicles and has done so well.  The old venerable jeep and the so called light vehicle role, with a level of medium lift being absorbed.

It had always been designed as a multi-use, multi-weapons platform. 

It was designed to survive threats akin to Soviet doctrine.  Nowhere in that doctrine did IEDS exist.

Some of you have pulled proverbial fecal matter out of your backside on the HMMWV.

I work in an operational theatre and have seen the effects of IEDs on G-Wagons and up armoured HMMWVs.  Sorry folks I will take the ill named Hummer.

All the BS about to wide etc, you have operated these where and gone where with them?  Exactly.

The IED's being used can bore a hole into and in one case through a heavily armored vehicle.  Neither the G-wagon or Hummer would stand a chance.

From a platform standpoint, the Hummer is far superior, has a heavier payload (ammo) capability and can muscle through when needed.  G-Wagons, glad the CF got them, time will tell if it was money well spent. 

As for the comment about the US offering equipment.

The US did offer to outfit a Brigade with heavy armour, light armour and wheeled vehicles on a quasi loan lease one for one deal.  It was an offer to help us maintain our NATO capabilities.  The Tories where in hot water and it was kept low pri.  When the Tories got crushed, so did many of the military initiatives.  And yes the parts and service contract was US based.  Even though they would have most likely outsourced to Bombardier.  A big reason it was squashed was it would have been seen as a pro-US move by a government that has been waving an anti-Merican flag since they busted the Tories out of power and cancelled the maritime helicopter program.

But hey, central Canada will re-elect the Liberals and they will continue their financial rape and pillage unchecked.

 

[GO!!!]

I patrolled extensively around K-har in 2002 in up-armoured Humvees - no real complaints - it got us everywhere we wanted to go, but we did'nt get hit with VIEDs/IEDs.

Maintainers hated them, said that they were hard to work on and unreliable. The dust, heat and a thousand km over broken ground or crappy roads every three or four days might have had something to do with that too though.

The new G-Wagens are not too bad, but seem to be very top heavy - and I imagine will be more so with the turret. And sure they are reliable now - but wait until they have 5 years of hard use on 'em.

As for all the "look cool" statements about how humvees would help recruiting - sum up - kit is for using, not showing off.

After the suicide bombers and IEDs in Afghanistan, the LUVW seems to be doing alright, If we had to choose between them, I'd say that the humvee is probably the better choice, given the high price of the G-Wagon and it's components.

 

[Koenigsegg]

When the vehicle was first brought into service, it was for the mostpart unarmed, shortly after its introduction they planted a machine gun ontop.  And as things came up, they thought, Oh, let's do this, Let's do this, Let's do this.  One of the things I was getting at was, almost no vehicle that remains the same, only modified in minimal ways as it must, will be as good in any job as a vehicle made for that job.  Such a thing was very evident in WWII among other conflicts.  It would be like Canada mounting a bunch of guns on the Iltis, it would work, but not as well as it probably should.  As in the Vietnam War, they placed a machine gun on the M113, thinking it would all the problems.  It by no means did, It helped, provided cover for the troops while they left, and saved some lives.  But it did not do all they said it would for protection, and was not an all fixing addition.  Aslo like using F4 Phantams for the close air support role.  It worked, but they moved too damn fast to be trully effective when compared to the Douglas aircraft mainly meant for the job.

The HMMWVvs do a good job when used correctly, and are useful.  However I feel they should not be adopted into our services.

 

[a_majoor]

Like so many other things, the HMMVW is designed to meet certain parameters, and does them well. It is NOT a combat vehicle, recce vehicle, gunship or anything along those lines, the fact it can do these roles is a testament to the designer's good sense. I defy you to take your car/pickup truck/SUV and add over a tonne of extra armour and other devices on it, plug in 2 or 3 times the number of electronic systems that were origionally installed, then lend it to all your friends for several years to drive like maniacs and not wonder why the thing looks like it is worn out.

This defines the parameters of the "new" vehicle, it needs to take the same footprint as the HMMVW or smaller, yet do all the things the HMMVW can do as well as act as a fighting vehicle when needed. I still think a common chassis which is armoured and "mine proofed" to the door sills would be a good start, the utility version can have a soft top, while things like Recce platforms, ATGM/AA, LO vehicles etc. would have a fully armoured shell.

 

[CanadianBoy92]

Humvees are amazing trucks.  They can be used for all kinds of roles.  I think we should trade in all of our trucks and buy som Humvees.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

CB92,
You should be listening to the teacher right now while in your computer class and if you won't listen then you should do some reading here first before you post.

 

[CanadianBoy92]

Ha  your really smart because im in computer class!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I know where also so start folowing the site guidelines or you will be gone.....